Ford just announced EPA-estimated fuel economy numbers for all four engines in the 2015 Ford F-150, in both four- and two-wheel drive configurations and the numbers, as expected, are pretty good. Some will note the new F-150 did not beat the Ram EcoDiesel (3.0-liter V-6 turbo-diesel with an eight-speed transmission), but when compared to other gasoline competitors, the new half-ton offers mpgs comparable to or better than the midsize pickup players, yet offers more than 50 percent more max payload and towing. To read our first-drive impressions, click here.

To date, the half-ton pickup truck with the best fuel-economy numbers in the industry is the Ram 1500 two-wheel-drive EcoDiesel V-6 with 20/28 mpg city/highway; Ram's 3.6-liter naturally aspirated V-6 gets 17/25mpg city/highway. Both versions are mated to the eight-speed transmissions. Chevrolet and GMC's half-ton V-6 pickups (two-wheel drive) have EPA ratings of 18/24 mpg city/highway.

Here's what we know from Ford:

2015 Naturally Aspirated Engines

4x2 F-150 3.5-liter V-6: 18/25/20 mpg city/highway/combined

4x4 F-150 3.5-liter V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined

(2014 F-150 4x2 3.7-liter V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined)

4x2 F-150 5.0-liter V-8: 15/22/18 mpg city/highwaycombined

4x4 F-150 5.0-liter V-8: 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined

(2014 F-150 4x2 5.0-liter V-8: 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined)

2015 EcoBoost Twin Turbos

4x2 F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6: 19/26/22 mpg city/highway/combined

4x4 F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6: 18/23/20 mpg city/highway/combined

(2014 F-150: no equivalent)

4x2 F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6: 17/24/20 mpg city/highway/combined

4x4 F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined

(2014 F-150 4x2 3.5-liter V-6: 16/22/18 mpg city/highway/combined)

(2014 F-150 4x2 6.2-liter V-8: 13/18/15 mpg city/highway/combined)

Editor's note: This post was updated on Nov. 21 to include combined mileage ratings.

Cars.com images by Mark Williams

2015 Ford F-150 Driveline performance numbers:

Ford's all-new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine — with twin turbos, compacted graphite block and aluminum heads — is likely to be the most popular engine choice.

Not bad, but I had expected the F-150 to at least best the Ram gas v6. I am a little surprised it didn't. That leaves me asking was the aluminum worth it? Still I suppose the benefit now is the ability to tow a little bit more and and still have a truck that gets good mpg, though not at the same time.

Posted by: BenThere | Nov 21, 2014 11:46:42 AM

Well......It's certainly better numbers, but I'm not exactly sure any of the truck manufacturers are reinventing the wheel. It seems that they're just getting better at passing the fuel economy testing. Can't blame them. The aluminum body panels make good sense. The turbo technology is gonna max out quick. That's the only low hanging fruit I see. What next?

Posted by: Cameron Carlile | Nov 21, 2014 11:47:01 AM

In on the first page.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 11:52:37 AM

Am I reading that right?

18/23 for the 2.7L
17/23 for the 3.5L

Big F'ing deal. Can't say I'm too impressed Ford.

Posted by: Dooms | Nov 21, 2014 11:52:39 AM

Pretty disappointing. Considering all the talk about how they should hit 30 MPGs.

Posted by: Bigger Bob | Nov 21, 2014 11:52:44 AM

No one expected this thing to hit 30 mpg. If you did than thats your fault. 26mpg is damn nice for a v6 tt truck. not far off the more expensive ecodiesel. Ill take that any day of the week.

Posted by: freedomidi86 | Nov 21, 2014 11:54:57 AM

Kinda on par with what I expected. I figured if the numbers were drastically better they would have released earlier. I'm sure they F150's will sell well. I think more questions remain about feasibility of the aluminum body .

Then again I was also disappointed in the level of difference that the GM 8spd Auto made. In the interest of keeping power and capabilities high even with improvements as dramatic as the aluminum body leads to incremental (not dramatic) improvements.

Its become very clear that fuel economy improvements are going to be in dribs and drabs... 2% here and 4 or 5% there. Smaller engines, more gears, lighter materials, start stop, DI, Vari timing, DOHC, turbo(s),diesel, active grill shutters, aerodynamics its all coming in dribs and drabs there is no silver or aluminum bullet. But regardless of your preference no manufacturer can afford in the long run to ignore any of these (amongst other)technologies/practices/improvements.

Will the GM/Ford 10spd Auto Tranny pull it to that magic 30 in a truck with 0 options in the most perfect of conditions? Maybe... maybe not.

Its still better than a gas little truck.

Posted by: Clint | Nov 21, 2014 11:59:07 AM

It bests the Ram gas V6. Ram V6 is 17/25mpg with an 8 speed.

F-150 V6 is 18/25 with a 6 speed, and the 2.7L EB is 19/26 with a 6 speed.

Posted by: DT | Nov 21, 2014 12:03:00 PM

I have said it MANY times before and I will say it yet AGAIN...

Ford needs to have a V6 diesel option for the F150. They already know this. They MIGHT be able to squeeze out a few a mile per gallon or two with the supposed new 8 or 9 speed tranny that is coming but the diesel option would have been a winner right off the bat. With the weight savings from the Aluminum it might have been the first to crack 30mpg. But oh no Ford has spent so much money on this Ecoboost marketing that they are delaying or just outright put the stop to the V6 diesel.

Posted by: Shawn | Nov 21, 2014 12:04:16 PM

I'm not disappointed, except with the 2.7 4x4. I don't think they'll sell very well compared to the larger ecoboost.

Posted by: beebe | Nov 21, 2014 12:05:04 PM

And then there are the real world MPG figures...

Posted by: LJC | Nov 21, 2014 12:05:06 PM

I"m a huge ford guy and I'm really disappointed. I still want one but 2.7 is definitely off my radar now.

Posted by: SouthTXProsecutor | Nov 21, 2014 12:06:33 PM

If you want to ask about being worth it, do the math on ANY gas truck vs the 8 speed Ram EcoDiesel. The EcoDiesel costs hundreds more to drive per year. The aluminum is a one time fee and saves money every year.

If anyone thinks gas numbers are only pretty good, but thinks the Ecodiesel is tremendous, needs to break out a calculator.

Posted by: DT | Nov 21, 2014 12:08:40 PM

I guess i should have looked closer. It did best the gas Ram v6. I thus eat my previous words. Not bad Ford.

Posted by: BenThere | Nov 21, 2014 12:11:46 PM

@ Shawn

Why bring it out all at once when you object is to sell vehicles? Next year they can bring a transmission, the year after that a diesel, the year after that a mild refresh. It makes better business sense not to throw everything out there. Shoot they have a turbo v6 gas that is within 2 mpg of the Eco diesel and will olbliterate the diesel in everything other then a mpg or 2.

Nissan is the diesel to watch and will steal a bunch of ram customers. I can't stand the sub par performance of a diesel to even consider the mpg gain. But they all will eventually have diesel to help with epa requirements.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 12:12:22 PM

Those figures are kind of flat. Not exceptional or as good as they should be considering the hype behind this vehicle.

You wonder was it worth the effort. I do know there will be the guys who will praise this vehicle.

Like I have stated all along this vehicle is about FE. Looking at the figures it picked up 1 mpg, that's all. Look at the V8 FE figures between the 2014 and 2015. ONE MILE PER GALLON, that's it.

Has it delivered? I really don't think so. Maybe if you drive it a couple of thousand miles a day it could save you money. It seem diesel is by far the best option if you want a return for your investment.

Also, the figures are a little inaccurate. If you want to haul stuff around a lot in a an actual single cab work truck and not tow more than a couple of tons, buy the naturally aspirated V6. It will have much better FE than the 2.7.

The 2.7 will be like the 3.5 under load, almost a fuel pig.

Horsepower costs in energy consumed.

I did read a comment regarding using a V6 diesel. I would use the 3.2 inline 5 diesel. It would be a much cheaper option. The V6 Lion Ford diesel is an expensive engine.

Maybe Sergio is going down the correct path with Ram at the moment.

Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Nov 21, 2014 12:19:43 PM

IF Ram did the aluminum body panels with the ecodiesel and 8speed I bet it could reach 30mpg easy!

Posted by: Dodgeguy65 | Nov 21, 2014 12:21:25 PM

Gm must be relieved with these disappointing numbers. Let's not forget that the ecoboost underachieves bigtime in real world driving.

Posted by: Paul Hill | Nov 21, 2014 12:21:52 PM

@bebee, But 2.7 EB 4x4 vs 5.0 4x4 combined isn't too bad:

2.7 EB 4x4 (with 3.55 gears STANDARD): 20 mpg combined

5.0 V8 4x4 (with 3.31 gears STANDARD): 17 mpg combined

Also, keep in mind the 3.5 EB is rated at 23 hwy using 3.31 gears which isn't the only reason or a bad thing, just mentioning it.

Posted by: DT | Nov 21, 2014 12:24:36 PM

You have to remember the 5.0 has a good power bump this. The 3.5 ecoboost picked up 9% in fuel economy with this truck. Pretty darn good while delivering a more capable truck.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 12:28:15 PM

@ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ONLY LOOK AT FUEL MILF

You guys do realize that diesel cost more and with diesel being as a high as they are that a 28 mpg diesel actually cost you more per mile than a 26 mpg gas engine.

Take the fuel prices where I live in south Texas. Regular unleaded is 2.69 a gallon and diesel is 3.29 per gallon. With that and me driving an average of 15,000 miles a year, a 28 mpg Ecodiesel would cost over $200 more a year than a 26 mpg Ecoboost. Even if you went off combined fuel mileage with the Ecodiesel having a combined 24 mpg and the 2.7L Ecoboost having a combined 20 mpg, the Ecoboost would still have less of a yearly fuel bill by almost $40. Not to mention extra maintenance cost like DEF and that fact that the oil filter of the the Ecodiesel alone cost $30-$40 depending on where you get it. Given that and the fact that the Ecoboost 2.7L can out accelerate, out tow the same given weight, and you have a ton of payload available, I will say 26 mpg is not bad.

Posted by: 1L-L-A | Nov 21, 2014 12:28:57 PM

So the one to buy, Crew Cab short bed 4x4 2.7 twin-turbo V6 3.73 ring/pinion, will that return 17/22?

Not bad.
Lets see what the 10 speed automatic can do

Posted by: George_C | Nov 21, 2014 12:29:04 PM

In the Midwest Diesel is averaging 30% more or a $1.00 a gallon more then 87 unleaded. Anybody with a calculator can figure out that going diesel isn't worth it other then saying you got a diesel halfton. For the power alone I would go gas in a halfton.

Posted by: Jugger | Nov 21, 2014 12:31:01 PM

@Scott

Unless you are living under a rock or stuck in the late 1970's and 80's there is nothing sub par with modern diesels. Its a shame that people still think diesel is a dirty word when it comes to passenger cars and pickups. Yes there has been some really bad times in the past but like I just stated its all in the past. Modern diesels from the last 4 years now have been exceptional. The side benefit that diesel is coming down in price in many parts of the country and the longevity of a diesel and the higher resale value are all good reasons to make the switch.

But I do see your point about spacing out what they offer year to year and bring to market.

Posted by: Shawn | Nov 21, 2014 12:31:07 PM

If you want to see how a 28 mpg diesel stacks up against a 26 mpg gas engine where you live then here is the website to do it. Just be sure to plug in the numbers and click the box for whichever one is diesel.

Imagine for a moment that you already own a half ton Ford with less than 100k miles on the odometer. You care about saving money; you also care about saving fuel because it can help you save money. Some things to consider

Drive the old Ford a little longer. With the money you save, you can start buying a few shares of Ford Motor Company stock each payday. Keep buying the stock. Don’t buy a new truck. Not a Chevy, or a Ram or GMC or a (fill in the blank)

After a few years you’ll own a few shares of Ford and the old Ford truck will start looking a lot better to you. The 2015 Fords you see on the street will have the usual rust, dents, dings and scratches that all used trucks have.

Well, kind of as expected, about 2 MPG better but is it worth it? and I expect they will be garbage when towing a trailer.

Posted by: Jack | Nov 21, 2014 12:38:03 PM

At work we have a combination of ford and ram diesels. All urea models so much newer. Boring and sluggish. I have personally owned 7 diesels w since the millennium. Some tuned and some not. And my stock halfton that I traded my 6.7 cummins in on is gobs more spirited to drive. When I went and test drove a half ton diesel ram I was thourghly disappointed in it as it moved out at a slower pace then my 5500 cummins I have for work currently. Go drive a 6.2 gm and and Eco diesel back to back and get back to me.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 12:39:59 PM

My Titan had about the best throttle response of any truck I've ever driven, with great low end torque. I have driven all the others and I have a Ram Hemi now and their just not the same.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 21, 2014 12:44:13 PM

Great job FORD! I was not surprised by the MPG numbers, they are right where I thought they would be. I drove a 2015 2.7 4x4 earlier this month and it was awesome- fare exceeding my expectations. This news combined with my actual driving experience has me seriously re evaluating my earlier 5.0 mental commitment. My Ranger FX4 4.0 5 speed gets 19-20 mpg highway. The 2015 2.7 4x4 is so much nicer all the way around and gets better mileage. Looks like my Ford dealer will be getting a visit in the near future.

Posted by: FXDX1450 | Nov 21, 2014 12:44:19 PM

2015 Colorado V6: 18 city, 26 hwy

2015 F-150 V6: 18 city, 25 hwy

2015 F-150 2.7 EB: 19 city, 26 hwy

Posted by: Chris | Nov 21, 2014 12:47:46 PM

26 MPG in gas is the optimistic number. We all know we don't ever see that, and that's only highway anyway. Realistically you are still at 18-19 combined at best.

Mid-size Colorado - totally NOT worth it for the fuel economy. See I told you so.

Posted by: Chris | Nov 21, 2014 12:49:50 PM

Also when you calculate the cost of gas vs diesel does that include the fuel used to get the ecodiesel back to the dealer for cel work. Now that the Eco diesel is get some age on it the problematic diesel emissions are rearing there ugly heads pretty frequently.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 12:53:23 PM

4x2 Ford 2.7 vs Ram 3.6

HP 325 305 +20hp

Torque 375 269 +106 lb/ft

FE City 19 18 +1 mpg

FE Hwy 26 25 +1 mpg

Payload 2250 1900 +350 lbs

Towing 8500 7600 +900 lbs

Hmmm. So I guess Ram wins right? Because... ???

Posted by: Toycrusher | Nov 21, 2014 12:54:43 PM

Ford gives us a truck that hauls more, tows more, has higher hp and torque, and gets better mpg then the 2014's and it's not good enough? People give your heads a shake if you are not satisfied. They accomplished their goals and then some.

Posted by: kibsford86 | Nov 21, 2014 12:56:59 PM

Chd, You say Ford gets 18-19 and Ram gets 23-24 mpg COBMINED, it still costs more in fuel to drive the EcoDiesel.

Posted by: DT | Nov 21, 2014 12:58:55 PM

@Chd

"Realistically you are still at 18-19 combined at best."

I get 19-20 mpg combined on summer fuel and 18-19 combined on winter fuel in my work truck 2012 F150 3.5L Ecoboost 2wd Super Cab with 3.15 rear ratio. Our 3.55 rear axle ratio Ecoboost 2wd work trucks get 18-19 mpg combined on summer fuel. So how is it that the smaller and lighter 2.7L Ecoboost will only get 18-19 mpg "at best like you say?

I will admit you will not get good mileage with the short 3.55 or 3.73 gears in the Ecoboost which most people have those two ratios, but you will with the 3.31 or 3.15 rear axle.

Posted by: 1L-L-A | Nov 21, 2014 1:05:30 PM

The defenders / proponents of diesel consistently ignore the equipment cost, cost of maintenance and the cost of fuel + def and seem only to focus on the MPG. They make a Potemkin village argument that simply does not add up.

Posted by: FXDX1450 | Nov 21, 2014 1:14:10 PM

I don't know who was expecting 30mpg, certainly not me. After all, my real world results in a Fusion 2.0 EB was 25mpg, why would a heavier, boxier vehicle with a larger engine do better? The figures do appear competitive. Considering you get more torque and capability than the Chevy 5.3. The only one that beats it is the EcoDiesel, but you have to factor in the added costs. I also predicted that aluminum would help city mpg more than highway, I think everyone just looks at the highway figures for bragging rights. But 19 city is very good for a full-size gasser with 325/375. My 5.4 with less power and torque gets about 12-13 city, I'd be happy with an extra 175 miles on every tank!

Posted by: Alex | Nov 21, 2014 1:15:45 PM

@Toycrusher

Ram is back by SAE J2807 standards.

When Ram came out with 3.6 with 7600lbs of max towing it was best in class then ford bumped their towing up too 8500 with out changing a single thing on their truck? that spring dust helps a lot

Over a billion dollars spent by Ford on their new pickups and to only gain that little in MPG. Not a good investment to me. I still want a pickup that will last and the Ford pickup is not that truck.

Posted by: greg | Nov 21, 2014 1:33:55 PM

The closest thing we have for an apples to apples comparison to Silverado is the 5.0 vs. the 5.3. The Ford is only 1 mpg better. The real question: is it worth the huge expense to switch to aluminum construction? As for the city numbers for the 2.7, remember it has stop/start, which helps a lot in the epa cycle testing. One irritant is the common practice of journalists repeating "700 pounds lighter". That does not apply to every version and even Ford says "up to 700". With that small of an engine and all the hype of the aluminum body, I'm sure Ford was hoping for better results, hence the long delay in revealing the mpg numbers.

Posted by: tom in MO | Nov 21, 2014 1:41:47 PM

@Nick. Do the math on your 200k ownership ,factor all the items of maintenance, the fuel and the premium paid for the oil burner. Resale or trade go to the guide(s) of your choice NADA, KBB and see how that plays out. It does not - you get a fraction additional for your diesel choice. Are diesels bad?- No but do not attempt to do an economics argument it is a fail plain and simple. The choice for a diesel make sense for use applications, ie. HD usage -industrial, agriculture. Not typical half ton duty.

Posted by: FXDX1450 | Nov 21, 2014 1:42:45 PM

That's pretty disappointing to make such a big deal about the new aluminum body and supposedly loosing 700 lbs and it barely beats out Ram and GM naturally aspirated trucks in MPH on the freeway. Not to mention, how often the Ecoboost are going to be in the shop!! I'll stick with a Ram Hemi same mpg as the Ecoboost empty and the Hemi will last a lot longer and has better mpg than the Ecoboost when towing.

I ran into a guy that had a '14 Ram Limited crew cab Ecodiesel and I asked him what his mileage was, he said that he went from Louisiana to Utah and averaged 30.5 mpg. That's more impressive. In my opinion, Ram still has the best truck on the market.

It will be interesting to see the numbers on the new Titan

Posted by: Me | Nov 21, 2014 1:43:10 PM

I want a truck that's more luxurious than a Maybach, handles better than a BAC Mono, carries more people than a bus, tows and hauls more than a semi, easier to park than a Smart ForTwo, accelerates quicker than a Veyron, uses less fuel than a Prius, and is cheaper than a Tata Nano. I won't be impressed until that happens!

Posted by: Alex | Nov 21, 2014 1:48:17 PM

@Greg, a billion may sound like a lot, but it is not really when you factor in depreciation schedules in plant and equipment, long term mfg. strategies , market share gains ,cost per unit (labor/legacy benefits reductions ). This is round one, stay tuned for yrs. 16,17,18. Long term view wins the game.